GoF End / Moral ? / HP v V / Peter v Neville / Amos / at the well

[catlady_de_los_angeles]

No: HPFGUIDX 30818

Gwen/Lee wrote:

> Leaving aside that I agree the Ministry will pin the murder of 
> Cedric on Crouch Jr., thus making it impractical for Snape to 
> impersonate him,

It occurs to me that Fudge probably would rather that it did not 
become widely known that Barty Jr had escaped from Azkaban. Having 
two people escape from the escape-proof prison would not increase the 
populace's feeling of confidence. Maybe he will pin the murder of 
Cedric on the conveniently absent (dead and transfigured) Barty Sr, 
which creates the risk of prosecuting Percy as an accomplice, or even 
as the evil mastermind who manipulated poor old Barty who had gone 
senile. Maybe he will pin the murder of Cedric on the real Moody, 
justifying his paranoia.

Jim Ferer wrote:

> The kicker is that Voldemort's downfall (at least through his 
> blood-bond with Harry) will lead unavoidably to Harry's death. Do
> you sacrifice one very special young wizard to save hundreds or 
> thousands in the wizard world?

I would not be surprised if that IS what happens in book 7. Harry 
knowing accepts his own death as the cost to elminate Voldemort. 
Even if that was already done, in the Christ story. I also would not 
be surprised if the entirely wizarding world and all the magic 
people except Hermione were destroyed, and Hermione wrote it all down 
in a book. Even if that was already done, in the Mahabharata 
(spelling?), and the departure of the elves at the end of LOTR. 

Getting back to the topic, Dumbledore will explain the situation to 
Harry or make sure Harry finds out about it, and Harry will choose 
voluntarily to eliminate Voldemort despite the cost to himself. Some 
people would argue that an adult has a moral responsibility not to 
allow a child to make hiser own life and death decisions, but among 
other things that is irrelevant because Harry will be of legal adult 
age for wizards at that time. If the wizard who had the special bond 
with Voldemort were less heroic than Harry --- were, say, Gilderoy 
Lockhart --- I can see tricking himer into being sacrificed, 
involuntarily... I'm not saying that's moral, just that that's 
probably what I would do if I were in Dumbledore's position. 

Annalisa wrote:

> There are already unusual coincidencidental similarities between
> Harry and Voldemort -- the wands, being orphaned, very powerful, 
> being able to speak to snakes, etc. I wonder if Voldemort played 
> Quidditch.

I think we've been told that Harry picked up Parselmouth and some of 
his power level from Voldemort's failed curse, along with his scar. 
Maybe what the Fawkes' feather wand recognized in Harry was the Tom 
Riddle "flavor" that had attracted the other Fawkes' feather wand to 
young Tom. In that case, I imagine that the woods, yew of death and 
holly of birth/rebirth/resurrection, were just a co-incidence; the 
boys would have fetched up with holly for Tom and yew for Harry if 
Tom had tried the holly instead of first trying the yew....

Anyway, about the Quidditch. I've also been wondering if Tom Riddle 
were a star Seeker in his student days, and if being a 'natural' at 
flying and Seeking were also things Harry had picked up from 
Voldemort. Harry loves Quidditch as the only thing he believes he's 
good at, his Cinderella glory, that makes him popular with the other 
kids... think how awful he would feel if he learned that it wasn't 
really HIS talent at all?

Ladjables wrote:

> Neville has never hidden behind Ron and Harry like Peter did with
> Sirius and James, in fact singlehandedly attacked Crabbe and Goyle!

We don't actually know that Peter really did hide behind Sirius and 
James; only that Sirius said he did while in a justified rage. We do 
know that Scabbers attacked Crabbe and Goyle and bit Goyle's 
finger, as recently discussed on this list.

Cindy wrote:

> Diggory is also quite snippy with a house elf, which was also
> rather unnecessary.

Not during the first reading, but eventually it occured to me that 
Arthur and Amos were playing 'good cop, bad cop' with Winky. In case 
someone doesn't know the term, 'good cop, bad cop' is an technique in 
which one interrogator questions the suspect in an aggressive and 
threatening way, then the other interrogator comes in and tells him 
not to be so rough and asks the suspect much the same questions in a 
kindly tone of voice, and the suspect is so relieved to have SOMEONE 
on his side that he Tells All. I'm thinking that Arthur and Amos may 
have worked as a team in some previous MoM job and gotten so used to 
playing 'good cop, bad cop' on suspects that they fell into it almost 
out of habit when there was Winky that needed questioning. Some 
police officers who are regular partner take turns which will be 
'good cop', but Arthur probably always was 'good cop': it fits his 
style. But just because Amos is good at ACTING nasty doesn't mean 
that he would actually BE nasty to a House Elf whom he wasn't 
interogating.

David wrote:

> it must mean something - like the way people in the bible always 
> meet their wives by a well.)

Forget all that Jungian stuff about wells symbolizing the female 
archetype. In that culture, the only time young women left the house 
with no chaperone except other young women was to draw water. Among 
people who don't have piped water, children and young women spend an 
awesome amount of time and walk an awesome total mileage each day, to 
go to the water source and draw water and carry it home for all 
cooking, bathing, washing, gardening purposes of water.